Most librarians love books, it’s probably what attracted many of them to the career in the first place. Yet for the past few decades they have become an ever-diminishing part of the work of the information professional, to the extent that many physical libraries have shrunk beyond recognition, and this is especially the case in law libraries, where the prevalence of digital resources and more latterly the onset of artificial intelligence (AI) have, to a certain extent, driven books and other hard copy items from their once prized position.
According to the BIALL/SLS Academic Law Library Survey 2022/23, as summarised by Claire Mazer in the last issue of LIM: “26% stated space for law collections had been reduced, with a further 12% stating that plans were in place to reduce space.”
But while this is having an effect in universities and other academic institutions, it’s undoubtedly the commercial law libraries that have seen the most drastic cutbacks in print collections, often due to pressure of space as well as the emergence of new technologies, while the change in the way people work since the pandemic has also played a role.
For most, all this has been obvious for some time, but here at LIM we were interested in finding out the true picture on the front line, which meant asking those working in the sector for their views. With this in mind, we put together a short survey, and this found that there had indeed been a significant reduction in print collections across law firms, with many respondents estimating a decrease of up to 50% in the last five years. The main reason cited for this was the increased accessibility and convenience of digital resources, which have simply made physical collections less necessary. Respondents also detailed various strategies for reducing their collections, such as prioritising essential materials, donating to charities and using offsite storage for less frequently used items. The questions and the responses are looked at in more detail below.
METHODOLOGY
The survey was sent to 16 large full-service UK commercial law firms and there were 11 responses. It was sent out on 5 January 2025, and responses were requested by 31 January 2025. Most of the people involved work in London offices and some have been in the profession for over 20 years, meaning they have witnessed the gradual erosion of print collections firsthand. All the responses are anonymous, to encourage openness, and although we have quoted in full where it helps to get a point across, all these quotes are unattributed.
Shelves crammed with books have always been associated with librarians, but will print collections play a large part in legal information work in the future?
THE SURVEY
The questions from the survey are in italics, with some of the responses – unattributed – and analysis of the findings outlined below them.
When you work in the office, do you sit with a physical collection in a designated ‘library’ area? Or are your materials held elsewhere in the building, or held offsite in storage?
There was a mixture of responses to this, with most saying that the collection is dispersed around the building to a certain extent, the following quote being quite typical: “Materials are in other locations in the building – there is still a central library core collection and then separate practice-specific materials are located in small collections with the appropriate fee earners.”
The same respondent also said the library had offsite storage for old editions not required on ready-access, and this also seemed fairly common.
One respondent said the collection was “Held elsewhere by department” but in contrast another said, “I sit with a physical library collection here.” This latter comment was the exception to the rule, though, and most said there was a mix – 90% in fact – with the following response quite typical: “Our team sit together with our General Reference book collection and some archived materials. However, the rest of our materials are located in multiple satellite libraries we have… located on different floors and with different fee earning departments. We keep some archived materials in an offsite storage facility.”
Interestingly, one phrase that pops up in the majority of responses is ‘satellite libraries’.
By how much do you estimate your print collection has reduced in the last five years? Please provide a percentage estimate of the reduction.
This ranges from a whopping 90% (one) to as low as 5% (two). The average is actually around the 50% mark, though, which in just five years is obviously quite a large amount – yet it should be remembered that this timeframe includes the pandemic, and that obviously had a big impact on the way law firms have operated. It’s interesting to note that not one of those surveyed said that their print collection had actually increased in size.
The comments from those with the smaller reductions in their print collections are interesting. “About 5% overall,” said one. “Really not much in percentage terms for the whole collection, but we have reduced our hard copy law reports by about 20%.”
Another said it was difficult to come up with a figure: “Our book purchases are user-driven and irregular. We try to push back on hard copy purchases where we have these available online. Since 2020 we have reduced our hard copies of looseleafs by 65%.”
Another also mentioned looseleafs: “Our book collection tends to reduce year on year as we don’t buy as many copies of annual titles as we used to and we have moved online for most major works. We have also cancelled a lot of looseleaf works. The main hit has been to our journal and law report collections, we don’t have figures to hand, but I would say our collections have been reduced by at least 50%.”
Assuming you have had to reduce your print collection, what has been the main reason for this?
Space really is the final frontier when it comes to this question, it seems, with just over half the respondents saying that this is the case, one adding that it was “Pressure from Facilities/management re. office space.”
The pandemic has also had an effect, as it forced solicitors to work remotely and use online sources rather than print. “Pandemic and lack of print access convinced the fee earners that some things were really not being used,” noted one respondent.
Another said: “The sudden need to have online access due to the pandemic. [A] subsequent reason was lack of space due to the reconfiguration of the office due to hybrid work/hot desking. Most requests for new books since then are for online access where available.”
Related to this, the ease of using online materials was also seen as a driving force. “Getting rid of looseleaf titles and moving online, where that option is available. Less management needed electronically and easier for everyone to access when working remotely,” said one of the respondents.
The move to online itself has also driven the reduction in print collections, and there are a number of reasons for this. “The main reason for hard copy reduction since 2020 was accessibility; with multiple offices in UK and overseas, we had to make sure the resources were accessible as much as possible (online format proves most practical),” said one respondent, adding: “Also, post lockdowns the hybrid working style from the office/home/overseas makes it even more important that we can offer resources online. To a lesser extent, we wanted to prevent resources going missing (cost reduction of hard copy replacement).”
How have you gone about reducing your collection? How did you decide what to keep, and what not to keep?
There were a number of differing responses to this question and it’s worth going into them in a little more detail.
One said: “[We] liaised with contacts from each department, they know best what they use and need”, while others mentioned a similar approach: “Consultations with PSLs [professional support lawyers], heads of departments and other stakeholders. We kept what is seen to be essential to keep in hard copy because it is either not available online or there is a strong preference to keep hard copies due to cost or ease of use for our lawyers. We would also keep or archive out of print resources where it would be difficult or impossible to order in via a third-party provider.”
Another, quite systematic, approach was: “Looked at duplication either with other print copies or with online versions – often reduced to single or no print copies where online available. Reviewed everything older than 12 years – looked at loan stats, other resources on topic, online availability, significant changes in area of law, then made recommendations to knowledge lawyers and agreed actions.”
A more specific response was: “Books that hadn’t been used in years and were no longer relevant to the practices went. Many key texts, such as Chitty and the Common Law Library, were kept. Heavily used titles are still useful in hard copy, as a different medium for reference. Online can be tiring and less easy to browse.”
The experience of the information professionals involved also plays a large part in the decision-making process. “We are leveraging the team of librarians’ expertise of managing collections, from both working at this firm and previous roles in other organisations. We also consult with the practice groups.”
“In the first place, we have identified which books are available online on big platforms like Westlaw, Lexis+, Bloomsbury or Kluwer,” explains another response. “We worked closely with our knowledge lawyers who liaised with fee earners to help us reach decisions. The main reason for keeping some books would be the need to take them to court.”
“The first items in the firing line are journals and law reports,” another said. “We’ve also reduced our grey literature collection to almost nothing. Then things like Halsbury’s and legislation. If we have access online, then those are the first resources to go then we look at usage/age/availability on document supply.”
Have you been able to find new homes for the print materials? If so, where?
Throwing out books is anathema for librarians, and so it’s no surprise that many of those who responded to our survey made sure they went to good homes where that was possible, though three were unable to do this and so the items concerned were ‘recycled’, which does have the chilling ring of ‘put to sleep’ about it.
Some works went to charities, which provide surplus materials and equipment from businesses to schools, and also to the BIALL Duplicates Exchange.
Meanwhile, “some have variously been taken home by fee earners, donated to charity shops or sold to law report buyers,” said one respondent, adding that “the majority is recycled”.
“Some texts were sent to storage, some were donated to African law libraries, some were destroyed,” another respondent said. “We kept some old editions in storage where partners requested this due to a need to have copies for court, or the need to keep old Tax Acts, etc.”
Are there any print materials you would never let go of? Please provide details/titles.
The White Book, including old editions, was a firm favourite with our respondents, with four out of 10 saying they would keep hold of it. “Many key litigation and arbitration titles. Those which aren’t available online. Deskbooks, such as Butterworths Company Law Handbook and The White Book,” was one typical response.
Some older books are also more likely to be kept. “Bound volumes of legislation that we have dating from 1800 to 2012. Bound volumes of the most authoritative series of law reports – we have volumes that are not available in digital format. Older editions of our jurisdictions’ books that are not available online.”
“If the book would be hard to source again then we definitely keep it,” another respondent said. “Also, if there is a significant difference between the online version and the print. If the online does not have pagination or does not have the fn [footnotes] easily linked (sometimes the fn are attached as a separate document) then we definitely keep the hard copies because they are preferred for court exhibits. Also, if the online cannot be used as a source for the title and verso title pages (also needed for court).”
Sticking with courts, one of our respondents pointed out that: “All religious books in hard copies are needed for swearing oath in our arbitration hearings. We have the Bible, King James version, the Quran, Bhagavad Gita and Sikh Gutka Nitnem Sahib.”
It’s not all about getting rid of or keeping books, though, and there are still some that are being bought new. “We are purchasing new editions and archive the old ones of White Books, Yellow/Orange handbooks, key litigation e.g. Passmore on Privilege, Jackson & Powell, Law Society publications,” said one respondent.
Have you been forced to destroy/dispose of any items which you wanted to keep? Please provide details. As a librarian, how do you feel about this?
Happily, as far as the respondents to our survey are concerned, this does not seem to be an issue, although that’s not to say that on occasion others do not interfere, sometimes with devastating effect: “Some of our Lloyd’s Law Reports went missing/destroyed in a recent move between storage locations. [I was] Rather angry as it was an internal error!”
“No, never at all, it’s my call,” was a response to this question that was in-line with most, though, while another said: “We haven’t had much say in the reduction of space but we have been free to choose what went.”
Interestingly, it’s sometimes the case that it’s not information professionals that have a problem with getting rid of books anyway, for as one response put it: “We feel that as librarians we’re happy to get rid of anything we deem unnecessary to keep, whereas lawyers sometimes struggle with this.”
How much pressure do you receive from other departments in your firm about either retaining or reducing your print collections? This might be fee earning teams, or support teams.
“Tax want to keep everything,” said one respondent in answers to this question, adding: “Facilities want us to get rid of everything.”
That might be simplifying it a bit, but other responders have also said that it’s not always so much pressure to get rid of print, but rather to keep it, and the fact that this goes both ways can make it a tricky line to tread. “There is a real conflict between departments wanting to keep some archived content/key titles in hard copy as opposed to pressure to cut down on hard copies due to space restrictions and cost. It’s challenging to keep a balance.”
On the whole, though, this seems to be library driven. “We haven’t had pressure as we have usually been ahead of potential requests, conducting regular reviews. Any pressure usually comes from support teams looking to maximise physical onsite space and minimise offsite storage costs. The fee earning teams are now pretty good at working with us to reduce collections if possible and then helping us justify space for what is retained.”
“We do come under pressure from facilities to reduce, especially when we are moving office as the popular opinion is that everything is online!” said another respondent. “Of course, this isn’t always the case and even if materials are online we do have to consider if they will always be so. We can also come under pressure to retain older materials, especially annuals, where users want to keep previous editions so they have one of their very own! Or in dispute teams where they may need to retain for reference purposes. In these situations we try to keep one central copy for lending but some users want to have them to hand.”
Finishing this question with two more responses, perhaps the opening line is spot on after all? “None [pressure] from fee earning teams, but some from facilities in relation to floor moves, etc. to provide more space”, and from another respondent: “We don’t get pressure to dispose of books, if anything, we get pressure to keep the outdated books e.g. tax books, Woodfall etc.”
What do you think the situation will look like in five years’ time? Will we access legal content completely online? If not, why not?
Most who responded to this survey do not believe that we will be online only within the next five years. “Whilst ‘book’ commentary sources are published then there will probably always be some titles which it is not cost effective to have online due to potential use, i.e. a print copy or two will be the cheapest option for the number of times we’ll need it. There are also niche titles which just aren’t available online. In five years, I can see there will be fewer print editions available, but we won’t be exclusively online.”
Others echo that argument. “Sometimes one hard copy is all that is needed. A multi-licence would be too expensive. For ease of use, hard copy can still be much easier to reference than online versions. I think the situation will be about the same. Covid caused a sudden change to electronic, which was welcome. Now things have settled down.”
“Very unlikely,” said another. “Because so many publishers are just not very good/flexible. Quite often the publishers will bundle the titles in with others we don’t need and don’t want to pay for, so we keep the hard copy instead. Also, some of the main works are not browsable online, the online just does not work as well as it should and there is probably no great incentive to improve that. Also, eBooks are not transferable, so that is not much use for a law library.”
All that said, some believe that it is perhaps possible. “It depends whether everything has been digitised by then. There seem to be some titles that the publishers don’t think make business sense to digitise at the moment. It depends if that changes in the next few years. Younger lawyers tend to ignore print completely as it is now such a small percentage of our collections, it doesn’t seem to occur to them to even try it, despite our/PSLs’ best efforts to help them understand why it may be important to their work.”
“Most content will be online,” said another respondent. “We’ve seen the shift in journal content moving online only and it is only a matter of time before book content follows. In the short term, the move to digital relies on improvements in licensing so we can have access for as many users as required without the astronomical costs. Sometimes the hard copy still makes more financial sense.”
Another respondent said: “Maybe in 20 years’ time it will be different, but I don’t see it being that different in just five years’ time.”
Is there anything else that you would like to say on this subject?
Our bucket question perhaps provoked the best responses, so we make no excuses for including some of these in full.
“It became apparent that some team members really identified with a library space and having lots of books, and they really struggled when this was no longer available,” said one respondent. “They seemed to feel the firm no longer valued their contribution, even though it was the books that had gone, not people. So, we had to manage that change and help them adjust. I personally miss people coming in to use the space, for work, studying and so on.”
Another said: “I think the number of hard copy books we get will continue to fall, but I can’t foresee a drastic fall in numbers over the next few years. We now get very few journals in hard copy and I suspect more publishers will cease to publish in hard copy and will either move solely to online access or cease publication altogether. A good example of the latter is Estates Gazette, I think more titles will follow, as the likes of Lexology and Mondaq continue to grow.”
Another respondent made some very interesting points regarding the changes we are seeing, and that we should be careful about chucking the baby out with the bath water. “The physical constraints of using books electronically, eye fatigue and quick referencing for example, means there will always be a need for some hard copy. I don’t miss looseleaf titles and the need for updating. Whether the next generation will know which books to use, due to the lack of being able to browse a bookshelf on a particular topic, could be an issue.”
But while they are all good points, it’s likely the cost will be the decider on whether print remains in the long run, yet that can be where online does not always make sense. “The cost of moving to online only has meant the need for a significant increase in budgets,” one of the respondents pointed out. “This is very challenging to explain to the partnership and the accountants. There is a bizarre perception, still in 2025, that online means cheaper or free!
“There is a lack of understanding of why we cannot have access to absolutely everything, that you cannot just purchase at point of need, that annual subscriptions are required and can sometimes take weeks to set up.”
Another respondent made the point that while making books is not exactly good for trees, there are actually – very often conveniently ignored – issues with digital media and the huge data centres that are now in existence. “I would like much more information on the environmental impact of digital resources to be made available – it’s widely viewed as the ‘green’ option, but it’s difficult to ascertain the carbon footprint of online resources.”
But the final word on this subject goes to this respondent. “From a practical standpoint the reduction in hard copy is inevitable and it doesn’t make sense to take up space in an office when it is all online. If you bring in sentiment, it is very sad when you dispose of a complete set of bound law reports or Halsbury’s. These things are what we think of when you imagine a law library, neat rows of shiny books, but it isn’t practical to take up space when you can download a court ready PDF of a case report from an online provider.”
CONCLUSION
As we’ve seen, the decline of print collections in law firm libraries is mainly driven by technological advancements, space constraints and evolving professional needs. Yet while digital resources offer numerous advantages, the transition away from physical collections also presents challenges that require careful management and strategic planning. As law firms continue to navigate this shift, it is essential to balance the benefits of digitalisation with the preservation of valuable print materials. But the main thing to remember is the point of legal information work in the first place, and that is ensuring that legal professionals have access to the resources they need to succeed.
The LIM Editors would like to thank all the respondents who gave us their valuable time to participate in this survey.
